The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Biological network comparison using graphlet degree distribution
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Analogous to biological sequence comparison, comparing cellular networks is an important problem that could provide insight into biological understanding and therapeutics. For technical reasons, comparing large networks is computationally infeasible, and thus heuristics, such as the degree distribution, clustering coefficient, diameter, and relative graphlet frequency distribution have been sought. It is easy to demonstrate that two networks are different by simply showing a short list of properties in which they differ. It is much harder to show that two networks are similar, as it requires demonstrating their similarity in all of their exponentially many properties. Clearly, it is computationally prohibitive to analyze all network properties, but the larger the number of constraints we impose in determining network similarity, the more likely it is that the networks will truly be similar. Results: We introduce a new systematic measure of a network's local structure that imposes a large number of similarity constraints on networks being compared. In particular, we generalize the degree distribution, which measures the number of nodes ‘touching’ k edges, into distributions measuring the number of nodes ‘touching’ k graphlets, where graphlets are small connected non-isomorphic subgraphs of a large network. Our new measure of network local structure consists of 73 graphlet degree distributions of graphlets with 2–5 nodes, but it is easily extendible to a greater number of constraints (i.e. graphlets), if necessary, and the extensions are limited only by the available CPU. Furthermore, we show a way to combine the 73 graphlet degree distributions into a network ‘agreement’ measure which is a number between 0 and 1, where 1 means that networks have identical distributions and 0 means that they are far apart. Based on this new network agreement measure, we show that almost all of the 14 eukaryotic PPI networks, including human, resulting from various high-throughput experimental techniques, as well as from curated databases, are better modeled by geometric random graphs than by Erdös–Rény, random scale-free, or Barabási–Albert scale-free networks. Availability: Software executables are available upon request. Contact: natasha@ics.uci.edu
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Basic local alignment search tool
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · Cited by 98,669
Emergence of Scaling in Random Networks
Barabási, A.-L., & Albert, R. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.509 · Cited by 36,135
Network biology: understanding the cell's functional organization
Barabási, A.-L., & Oltvai, Z. N. (2004) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg1272 · Cited by 7,903
A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
Uetz, P., Giot, L., Cagney, G., Mansfield, T. A., Judson, R. S., Knight, J. R., Lockshon, D., Narayan, V., Srinivasan, M., Pochart, P., et al. (2000) · Nature · doi:10.1038/35001009 · Cited by 4,706
Cited by
Geometric Deep Learning: Going beyond Euclidean data
Bronstein, M. M., Bruna, J., LeCun, Y., Szlam, A., & Vandergheynst, P. (2017) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2017.2693418 · Cited by 3,661
Broido, A. D., & Clauset, A. (2019) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-019-08746-5 · Cited by 875
Structural Properties of the Caenorhabditis elegans Neuronal Network
Varshney, L. R., Chen, B. L., Paniagua, E., Hall, D. H., & Chklovskii, D. B. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001066 · Cited by 867
Representation learning for dynamic graphs: A survey
Kazemi, S. M., Goel, R., Jain, K., Kobyzev, I., Sethi, A., Forsyth, P., & Poupart, P. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1905.11485 · Cited by 338
Emmert-Streib, F., Dehmer, M., & Haibe-Kains, B. (2014) · Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology · doi:10.3389/fcell.2014.00038 · Cited by 282
Quantification of network structural dissimilarities
Schieber, T. A., Carpi, L., Díaz-Guilera, A., Pardalos, P. M., Masoller, C., & Ravetti, M. G. (2017) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/ncomms13928 · Cited by 237
Geometric De-noising of Protein-Protein Interaction Networks
Kuchaiev, O., Rašajski, M., Higham, D. J., & Pržulj, N. (2009) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000454 · Cited by 180
Self-citationEmergent Complex Network Geometry
Wu, Z., Menichetti, G., Rahmede, C., & Bianconi, G. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep10073 · Cited by 98
Biomedical data, computational methods and tools for evaluating disease–disease associations
Xiang, J., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., Wu, F.-X., & Li, M. (2022) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbac006 · Cited by 49
Higher-order molecular organization as a source of biological function
Gaudelet, T., Malod-Dognin, N., & Pržulj, N. (2018) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty570 · Cited by 46
Self-citationDisrupting networks of hate: characterising hateful networks and removing critical nodes
Alorainy, W., Burnap, P., Liu, H., Williams, M., & Giommoni, L. (2022) · Social Network Analysis and Mining · doi:10.1007/s13278-021-00818-z · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Pržulj, N.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-01-15
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e177-e183
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2104812688
- Cited by
- 837
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 6.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.